What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

WR Sammy Watkins, BAL (1 Viewer)

Today was a good illustration of why short passes kill per-target stats. Sammy had perhaps the best game of his career, was open all over the field, set a personal best for targets and catches, converted seven first downs, drew another first down via penalty, and essentially just dominated from start to finish.

He also finished more than two yards per target below his season average.

 
The guy is always open. Look at what happens when he actually gets targets. This season was part of a mini coming out party. Stay tuned as this guy is an absolute beast. He is a match up nightmare and if he gets single coverage he is almost uncover-able. Taylor finally realizing how he can make himself some more money. Throw the ball to your stud a lot and you will be fine.

Still waiting to hear any detractors of Watkins not being an elite NFL wr? Sure has got quiet in here from the naysayers.

 
That is because being right is more important than being honest in here. Most of the naysayers you speak of are now claiming to have been Sammy Watkins fans and owners all along. Go figure. Lol.

 
Rotoworld:

Sammy Watkins secured 11-of-15 targets for 136 yards in the Bills' Week 17 upset of the Jets.

He torched Darrelle Revis soundly and repeatedly in this one, and was Buffalo's entire offense after Karlos Williams (knee) left. Riddled with early-season injuries, Watkins appeared ticketed for a disappointing sophomore campaign before going bonkers in the season's second half. After the Bills' Week 8 bye, Watkins topped 80 yards in seven of Buffalo's final nine games with seven touchdowns during that span. He finished 2015 averaging 18 yards per catch after managing 15.1 YPR as a rookie. Although the Bills will remain a run-first team under Rex Ryan, Watkins has showed capable of posting monster games on limited volume. Still only 22 years old, Watkins will be a high-ceiling WR2 pick in 2016 fantasy drafts and remains squarely in "buy" territory in Dynasty formats.


Jan 3 - 4:52 PM
 
I'll probably have the #1 pick in my 12-team PPR next year.

I will start with Antonio, and I'd have no problem taking Watkins at 24/25 if he's there.

 
Watkins has undeniable talent. The production caught up to the talent, as it always does.

Guys that focus strictly on stats make ridiculous comparisons like "Eric decker".

That's not how you win dynasty leagues. You win leagues by acquiring guys that pass the eye test, and holding them until they grow into studs.

Even in redraft, when faced with the choice between Decker and Sammy midseason...you go Sammy every time. Go with talent. You can get average Wrs all day long. Guys like Sammy are rare.

 
Watkins has undeniable talent. The production caught up to the talent, as it always does.

Guys that focus strictly on stats make ridiculous comparisons like "Eric decker".

That's not how you win dynasty leagues. You win leagues by acquiring guys that pass the eye test, and holding them until they grow into studs.

Even in redraft, when faced with the choice between Decker and Sammy midseason...you go Sammy every time. Go with talent. You can get average Wrs all day long. Guys like Sammy are rare.
I agree. Even in redraft, it's a long season. Talent usually wins out.

 
Watkins has undeniable talent. The production caught up to the talent, as it always does.

Guys that focus strictly on stats make ridiculous comparisons like "Eric decker".

That's not how you win dynasty leagues. You win leagues by acquiring guys that pass the eye test, and holding them until they grow into studs.

Even in redraft, when faced with the choice between Decker and Sammy midseason...you go Sammy every time. Go with talent. You can get average Wrs all day long. Guys like Sammy are rare.
How people can still not understand what the comp was is mind boggling.

He produced in line (just behind or a bit behind pending your scoring) with Decker. The degree to which this comp, which was only ever BASED ON PRODUCTION, proved to be true is about as spot on as it gets. His PRODUCTION does not warrant comps to all time greats, period. All it was ever about..

60 1047 9

80 1027 12

The "talent" argument is a separate discussion entirely. Another where I disagree with labeling him "elite", but again not one where I ever once compared him to Decker.

/Broken record.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Watkins has undeniable talent. The production caught up to the talent, as it always does.

Guys that focus strictly on stats make ridiculous comparisons like "Eric decker".

That's not how you win dynasty leagues. You win leagues by acquiring guys that pass the eye test, and holding them until they grow into studs.

Even in redraft, when faced with the choice between Decker and Sammy midseason...you go Sammy every time. Go with talent. You can get average Wrs all day long. Guys like Sammy are rare.
How people can still not understand what the comp was is mind boggling.

He produced in line (just behind or a bit behind pending your scoring) with Decker. The degree to which this comp, which was only ever BASED ON PRODUCTION, proved to be true is about as spot on as it gets. His PRODUCTION does not warrant comps to all time greats, period. All it was ever about..

60 1047 9

80 1027 12

The "talent" argument is a separate discussion entirely. Another where I disagree with labeling him "elite", but again not one where I ever once compared him to Decker.

/Broken record.
Yawn
 
In 7 victories, Sammy had:

45 targets

31 catches

550 yards

2 TDs

In 6 losses he had:

51 targets

29 catches

497 yards

7 TDs

Should we root for Buffalo to lose more next year?

 
Been digging up some Sammy Watkins stats on Twitter this morning.

Even ignoring the 2nd half splits, Watkins had a tremendous season. He became just the 9th player in history to play 12 or more games and average 80 or more receiving yards per game at age 22 or younger. (Mike Evans and Allen Robinson also joined him on that list this year.) The other players to do it were a couple of real old-school guys in Billy Howton and Harlon Hill, Randy Moss, Larry Fitzgerald, Hakeem Nicks, Rob Gronkowski, Josh Gordon, and Odell Beckham.

Chase Stuart tracks a couple of stats that measure how much of a team's passing game a receiver makes up. The first is the unwieldy-sounding Adjusted Catch Yards per Team Pass Attempt. Basically, take a receiver's yards, add in a 9 point bonus for every first down and a 20 point bonus for every touchdown, and divide the resulting total by his team's total pass attempts, (so a guy stuck on the most run-heavy offense in the league is on a level playing field with the guy on the most pass-heavy offense).

The top 10 ACY/TmAtt values of 2014 were:

4.07 - Antonio

4.07 - Jordy

4.02 - Dez

3.78 - Demaryius

3.64 - Cobb

3.53 - Julio

3.50 - Hopkins

3.40 - Sanders

3.08 - Beckham

3.01 - Boldin

That's a pretty solid list of the best receivers of 2014. If we adjust for missed games, Beckham would rise to 4.10 and Julio would rise to 3.77.

A month ago, Chase ran some preliminary numbers for 2015. Here was the top 10 as of December 8th, (these already adjust for missed games):

4.5 - Antonio

4.4 - Alshon

4.2 - Julio

4.1 - Green

3.9 - Fitzgerald

3.8 - Hopkins

3.7 - Evans

3.7 - Marshall

3.7 - Beckham

3.7 - Olsen

I'm just spelling that out so we have some context for Sammy Watkins' season-ending value. With the season in the books, Sammy Watkins wound up averaging 4.17 ACY/TmAtt. Ignoring his zero-catch day in week 1, that jumps to 4.40 ACY/TmAtt.

Another, (much simpler), statistic that Chase tracks is percentage of team receiving yards, which is exactly what it sounds like. Last year, Hopkins led the NFL with 35.0%, followed by Jordy at 34.2% and Antonio at 34%. This year, Hopkins is at 37.3%, Antonio is at 38.0%, and Julio is at a whopping 40.7%.

In the 13 games that Sammy Watkins played, he has accounted for 38.1% of Buffalo's receiving yards. Minus week 1, that rises to 41.0%. The volume that Sammy Watkins was able to produce in 13 games on a team that ranked 31st in pass attempts is genuinely remarkable.

(For those curious, Eric Decker averaged 2.84 ACY/TmAtt and had 24.6% of New York's receiving yards.)

Of course, if you *WANT* to play around with 1st half / 2nd half splits... since he returned from injury in week 9, Sammy Watkins has 5.35 ACY/TmAtt and 49.3% of his team's receiving yards. Which is... pretty good.

 
Respective cumulative stats in first two seasons:

Andre Johnson [32 starts] - 145/2,118/10

Sammy Watkins [29 starts] - 125/2,029/15 {so 20 less receptions, about 90 less receiving yards and 5 more TDs in three less starts}

Eric Decker - [13 starts] - 50/718/9 {95 less receptions, 1,400 less receiving yards and 1 less TD than Johnson in 19 less starts}

Based on production given the above, Johnson seems like a fair comp for Watkins, not Decker, with the key proviso - AT A COMPARABLE STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT.

* Watkins has been characterized by some as looking and playing "small". That doesn't seem reflected in how close the first two year body of work is between Watkins and the admittedly bigger Johnson.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I can't help feeling that Sammy will be a disappointment this year. Double-teamed. Run-heavy team. Dinged up. Etc. The excuses will keep piling up. But then you keep thinking he's the supposed #1 WR on his team with a QB that is looking good and the hope won't die. Ugh.
He already is a disappointment, and there is no reason to see things change from what we saw weeks 1-3.
How early on sunday did he leave the game? All I read is first half. Was this 10 minutes into the game? 25 minutes? Kind of makes a difference. If he played a full game and his statline was 5/90 instead of 1/39 people might not be so down on him - injury notwithstanding.
Run first team? Check.Offense that doesn't feature him? Check.

Good defense that keeps his team from throwing a lot in garbage time? Check.

Constantly injured or nicked up? Check.
Apparently can't beat top corners/double teams? Check.
Good call

 
Respective cumulative stats in first two seasons:

Andre Johnson [32 starts] - 145/2,118/10

Sammy Watkins [29 starts] - 125/2,029/15 {so 20 less receptions, about 90 less receiving yards and 5 more TDs in three less starts}

Eric Decker - [13 starts] - 50/718/9 {95 less receptions, 1,400 less receiving yards and 1 less TD than Johnson in 19 less starts}

Based on production given the above, Johnson seems like a fair comp for Watkins, not Decker, with the key proviso - AT A COMPARABLE STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT.
Bob,

If you prorate Eric Decker's 13 game stats to match AJ's 32 you get: 123/1767/22

If you prorate Sammy Watkins' 13 game stats to match AJ's 32 you get: 137/2238/17

Interesting numbers, didn't think it would be this close. Fantasy point wise Decker is right there with them with the extra touchdowns.

 
Watkins has undeniable talent. The production caught up to the talent, as it always does.

Guys that focus strictly on stats make ridiculous comparisons like "Eric decker".

That's not how you win dynasty leagues. You win leagues by acquiring guys that pass the eye test, and holding them until they grow into studs.

Even in redraft, when faced with the choice between Decker and Sammy midseason...you go Sammy every time. Go with talent. You can get average Wrs all day long. Guys like Sammy are rare.
How people can still not understand what the comp was is mind boggling.

He produced in line (just behind or a bit behind pending your scoring) with Decker. The degree to which this comp, which was only ever BASED ON PRODUCTION, proved to be true is about as spot on as it gets. His PRODUCTION does not warrant comps to all time greats, period. All it was ever about..

60 1047 9

80 1027 12

The "talent" argument is a separate discussion entirely. Another where I disagree with labeling him "elite", but again not one where I ever once compared him to Decker.

/Broken record.
Just 2 and a half months ago you called him a bust. Hard to tell what argument you're trying to make anymore.

 
Stop comparing Decker to Sammy. That's foolish and was shtick. It's a ridiculous line of reasoning to go through.

All receivers don't develop exactly the same. Julio didn't put up 100-1500-10 type stat lines until he was 4 years into the league. He put up really solid numbers before then, but not superstar numbers.

Everyone doesn't shoot out of the gate like Odell Beckham.

The height of foolishness in dynasty leagues is judging a player too early based solely on production. You could see Watkins' talent last year. All the hand-wringing that was done in this thread over the summer/fall was a waste of time.

There's no need to look at all the fancy rookie season stats and try to use those to determine what Watkins will be. That's a joke.

You look at the player. Is he good? Does he have talent? Does he get open? What are his physical attributes. The very notion of trying to compare Decker (an NFL veteran) and Watkins (a rookie when the comparison was made) based on production was flawed from the outset.

The comparisons for Watkins are Odell and Deandre. Those are the two receivers he's going to be battling with over the next decade. Can he be as good or better as them? Time will tell, but if he gets a little more accuracy from his QB, I think he can.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Adso,

I took it as a sign, AT A COMPARABLE STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT, that the talent gap between Johnson and Watkins vs. Decker is reflected in the fact that the latter had so many fewer starts.

The problem with the kind of retroactive proration you are suggesting (imo), there is an assumption that he would have done just as well as a rookie as he did in his second reason. As we know, historically rookies struggle, so that isn't an assumption I'd be comfortable making. The historically good 2014 WR class was a massive outlier and had an unprecedented three 1,000 yard WRs (OBJ, Evans and Benjamin - OBJ and Evans followed up with relatively strong years and imo showed they aren't one hit wonders, Benjamin missed the whole season, but I would have liked his chances to excel with Newton breaking out in an MVP caliber season). In some ways, Watkins was overshadowed and kind of the "forgotten WR" for not reaching that plateau. Yet he was less than 20 yards shy.

* I think I created some confusion here.

In their respective first two seasons:

Johnson played in 32 regular season games (obviously, with 32 starts :) ).

Watkins 29 games (same as his starts)

Decker 30 games

Decker was only 6/106/1 as a rookie. We could almost toss that out, but again, I'm not assuming he would have done just as well as he did in his second season, even if he had been afforded the opportunity. But he wasn't, so we'll never know. Be that as it may, it doesn't require the same kind of speculation in the case of comparing Watkins and Johnson, that stat-based comp is much more straightforward. Anyways, in Decker's second season (like when he was a rookie), if he had stats in games where he didn't start, than we can't assume all his production came in starts, and none in non-starts, which would throw off your prorations.

Another difference is Decker was 24 in his second season (and therefore probably had a physical maturation and development advantage), Johnson 23 and Watkins 22.

Relative to Decker, imo it is fair to say Watkins has far more of a career arc and trajectory characteristic of a prodigy in the early stages of his NFL curriculum vitae. An "enfant terrible"! :) So far, this aligns with his historically unprecedented collegiate resume, as the only true freshman WR in NCAA/FBS history to make AP First-Team All-American honors [[from his Clemson bio - "...just the fourth first-year freshman in NCAA history to earn AP First-Team All-America honors, joining Herschel Walker (1980) of Georgia, Marshall Faulk (1991) of San Diego State, and Adrian Peterson (2004) of Oklahoma."]]. And even a cursory glance at that cohort group reveals a Hall of Famer, a certain future Hall of Famer and an arguably near Hall of Famer (what if Herschel had never played in the USFL and played his entire career in the NFL?).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I noted this 2014 article in previous threads, and imo it did an excellent job of attempting to disabuse others of skewing the importance of height to extremes at the expense of other important criteria (Antonio Brown is the poster child in this regard, quicks, speed, smarts, elusiveness, route running, escaping press coverage technique, hands, competitiveness, toughness, to name just a few). Points out that if there is a confirmation bias perception that taller is better, people tend to remember successes and forget failures, and conversely, more likely to forget stud non-Sleestak WRs like Steve Smith, OBJ, etc. that are refractory to that narrative, and remember failures.

WR Size: Is It Valid Analysis? by Chase Stuart and Matt Waldman

http://mattwaldmanrsp.com/2014/06/02/wrsizeisitvalidanalysis/

* Just to be clear, Watkins isn't "small" by any stretch (6'0", 210 lbs.), he just doesn't have the hulking height/size of Calvin, Julio, Demaryius, etc.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
LMAO at this. But shame on you if you took anything this guy had to say about Sammy seriously. What a joke.

:lmao:
That account is like 99% shtick anyway, so it didn't surprise me.

I noted this 2014 article in previous threads, and imo it did an excellent job of attempting to disabuse others of skewing the importance of height to extremes at the expense of other important criteria (Antonio Brown is the poster child in this regard, quicks, speed, smarts, elusiveness, route running, escaping press coverage technique, hands, competitiveness, toughness, to name just a few). Points out that if there is a confirmation bias perception that taller is better, people tend to remember successes and forget failures, and conversely, more likely to forget stud non-Sleestak WRs like Steve Smith, OBJ, etc. that are refractory to that narrative, and remember failures.

WR Size: Is It Valid Analysis? by Chase Stuart and Matt Waldman

http://mattwaldmanrsp.com/2014/06/02/wrsizeisitvalidanalysis/

* Just to be clear, Watkins isn't "small" by any stretch (6'0", 210 lbs.), he just doesn't have the hulking height/size of Calvin, Julio, Demaryius, etc.
Beckham, Watkins, Hopkins and Brown are destroying the "size is everything" WR mantra.

 
LMAO at this. But shame on you if you took anything this guy had to say about Sammy seriously. What a joke.

:lmao:
That account is like 99% shtick anyway, so it didn't surprise me.

I noted this 2014 article in previous threads, and imo it did an excellent job of attempting to disabuse others of skewing the importance of height to extremes at the expense of other important criteria (Antonio Brown is the poster child in this regard, quicks, speed, smarts, elusiveness, route running, escaping press coverage technique, hands, competitiveness, toughness, to name just a few). Points out that if there is a confirmation bias perception that taller is better, people tend to remember successes and forget failures, and conversely, more likely to forget stud non-Sleestak WRs like Steve Smith, OBJ, etc. that are refractory to that narrative, and remember failures.

WR Size: Is It Valid Analysis? by Chase Stuart and Matt Waldman

http://mattwaldmanrsp.com/2014/06/02/wrsizeisitvalidanalysis/

* Just to be clear, Watkins isn't "small" by any stretch (6'0", 210 lbs.), he just doesn't have the hulking height/size of Calvin, Julio, Demaryius, etc.
Beckham, Watkins, Hopkins and Brown are destroying the "size is everything" WR mantra.
The "size is everything" WR mantra was based on a faulty reading of the data. I wrote a pair of articles on WR size last March/April (Link #1, Link #2). The first one demonstrated that size is already being valued highly by the NFL, (the higher a receiver is drafted, the taller he is on average), which means if a WR gets drafted high despite not being huge, the NFL must have seen something else it liked in him an awful lot to overcome that.

In other words, size is good in the same way that speed is good. All else is equal, you'd probably rather a receiver be big, just like you'd probably rather he be fast. But if a guy gets drafted high despite not being fast, that's not a big deal at all. (See: Anquan Boldin, Larry Fitzgerald.) Speed isn't everything, and all else is never equal. Same for size.

The second article deconstructed a study that was done "proving" the link between size and NFL success. The key is that the analysis focused only on statistical significance. It found that there was a statistically significant relationship between weight and NFL production, even if you controlled for draft position. This "proved" that the NFL was undervaluing size- even if you knew where a player was drafted, odds were that the bigger player was better.

The problem is that statistical significance, despite its status as the "sine qua non" of analytics today, is really rather useless on its own. If you compare the correlation of the model using both draft position and size to the correlation of the model using only draft position, you see that adding size does not actually improve predictive power. Any gains in R^2 are so miniscule that they're almost certainly merely a result from overfitting.

The relationship between size and NFL success might be statistically significant, but even an in-depth study by a "WR Size Is Undervalued" proponent merely showed that knowing how big a player is tells us nothing about how good he is going to be as a pro, provided we already know where he was drafted.

I also wrote a piece a couple weeks back on biomechanics and the "Square-Cube Law". Basically, talking about how size does correlate with the ability to perform certain tasks, but since there are so many different "tasks" a football player can perform, there's a wide variety of sizes that can "win". Julian Edelman doesn't win the same way as Calvin Johnson, and he wouldn't be as good at what he does if he was the size of Calvin Johnson. Desean Jackson and Vincent Jackson couldn't be more dissimilar physically, yet they're still the top two deep threats of the last decade, dominating in different ways that better fit with their unique bodies and biomechanics.

That last piece should still be behind the paywall, so sorry for non-subscribers. It should be coming out at some point this offseason, though. :)

 
These matters remind me somewhat of a few late, seminal non-football related generalists and inter-disciplinary thinkers, the economics best seller Small Is Beautful by E.F. Schumacher, as well as the Fable of the Polyploid Horse from Mind and Nature by Gregory Bateson (see below).

http://www.oikos.org/m&nschoolboy.htm

12. SOMETIMES SMALL IS BEATIFUL

Perhaps no variable brings the problems of being alive so vividly and clearly before the analyst's eye as does size. The elephant is afflicted with the problems of bigness; the shrew, with those of smallness. But for each, there is an optimum size. The elephant would not be better off if he were much smaller, nor would the shrew be relieved by being much bigger. We may say that each is addicted to the size that is.

There are purely physical problems of bigness or smallness, problems that affect the solar system, the bridge, and the wristwatch. But in addition to these, there are problems special to aggregates of living matter, whether these be single creatures or whole cities.

Let us first look at the physical. Problems of mechanical instability arise because, for example, the forces of gravity do not follow the same quantitative regularities as those of cohesion. A large clod of earth is easier to break by dropping it on the ground than is a small one. The glacier grows and therefore, partly melting and partly breaking, must begin a changed existence in the form of avalanches, smaller units that must fall off the larger matrix. Conversely, even in the physical universe, the very small may become unstable because the relation between surface area and weight is nonlinear. We break up any material which we wish to dissolve because the smaller pieces have a greater ratio of surface to volume and will therefore give more access to the solvent. The larger lumps will be the last to disappear. And so on.

To carry these thoughts over into the more complex world of living things, a fable may be offered:

THE TALE OF THE POLYPLOID HORSE​
The fable shows what inevitably happens when two or more variables, whose curves are discrepant, interact. That is what produces the interaction between change and tolerance. For instance, gradual growth in a population, whether of automobiles or of people, has no perceptible effect upon a transportation system until suddenly the threshold of tolerance is passed and the traffic jams. The changing of one variable exposes a critical value of the other.

They say the Nobel people are still embarrassed when anybody mentions polyploid horses. Anyhow, Dr. P. U. Posif, the great Erewhonian geneticist, got his prize in the late 1980s for jiggling with the DNA of the common cart horse (Equus caballus). It was said that he made a great contribution to the then new science of transportology. At any rate, he got his prize for creating - no other word would be good enough for a piece of applied science so nearly usurping the role of deity - creating, I say, a horse precisely twice the size of the ordinary Clydesdale. It was twice as long, twice as high, and twice as thick. It was a polyploid, with four times the usual number of chromosomes.

P.U. Posif always claimed that there was a time, when this wonderful animal was still a colt, when it was able to stand on its four legs. A wonderful it must have been! But anyhow, by the time the horse was shown to the public and recorded with all the communicational devices of modern civilization, the horse was not doing any standing. In a word, it was too heavy. It weighed, of course, eight times as much as a normal Clydesdale.

For a public showing and for the media, Dr. Posif always insisted on turning off the hoses that were continuously necessary to keep the beast at normal mammalian temperature. But we were always afraid that the innermost parts would begin to cook. After all, the poor beast's skin and dermal fat were twice as thick as normal, and it surface area was only four times that of a normal horse, so it didn't cool properly.

Every morning, the horse had to be raised to its feet with the aid of a small crane and hung in a sort of box on wheels, in which it was suspended on springs, adjusted to take half its weigh off its legs.

Dr. Posif used to claim that the animal was outstandingly intelligent. It had, of course, eight times as much brain (by weight) as any other horse, but I could never see that it was concerned with any questions more complex than those which interest other horses. I had very little free time, what with one thing and another - always panting, partly to keep cool and partly to oxygenate its eight-times body. Its windpipe, after all, had only four times the normal area of cross section.

And then there was eating. Somehow it had to eat, every day, eight times the amount that would satisfy a normal horse and had to push all that food down an esophagus only four times the caliber of the normal. The blood vessels, too, were reduced in relative size, and this made circulation more difficult and put extra strain on the heart.

A sad beast.

Of all such cases, the best known today is the behavior of fissionable material in the atom bomb. The uranium occurs in nature and is continually undergoing fission, but no explosion occurs because no chain reaction is established. Each atom, as it breaks, gives off neutrons that, that if they hit another uranium atom, may cause fission, but many neutrons are merely lost. Unless the lump of uranium is of critical size, an average of less than one neutron from each fission will break another atom, and the chain will dwindle. If the lump is made bigger, a larger fraction of the neutrons will hit uranium atoms to cause fission. The process will then achieve positive exponential gain and become an explosion.

In the case of the imaginary horse, length, surface area, and volume (or mass) become discrepant because their curves of increase have mutually nonlinear characteristics. Surface varies as the square of length, volume varies as the cube of length, and surface varies as the 2/3 power of volume.

For the horse (and for all real creatures), the matter becomes more serious because to remain alive, many internal motions must be maintained. There is an internal logistics of blood, food, oxygen, and excretory products and a logistics of information in the form of neural and hormonal messages.

The harbor porpoise, which is about three feet long, with a jacket of blubber about one inch thick and a surface area of about six square feet, has a known heat budget that balances comfortably in Arctic waters. The heat budget of a big whale, which is about ten times the length of the porpoise (i.e. 1,000 times the volume and 100 times the surface), with a blubber jacket nearly twelve inches thick, is totally mysterious. Presumably, they have a superior logistic system moving blood through the dorsal fins and tail flukes, where all cetaceans get rid of heat.

The fact of growth adds another order of complexity to the problems of bigness in living things. Will growth alter the proportions of the organism? These problems of the limitation of growth are met in very different ways by different creatures.

A simple case is that of the palms, which do not adjust their girth to compensate for their height. An oak tree with growing tissue (cambium) between its wood, and its bark grows in length and width throughout its life. But a coconut palm, whose only growing tissue is the apex of the trunk (the so-called millionaire's salad, which can only be got at the price of killing the palm), simply gets taller and taller, with some slow increase of the bole at its base. For this organism, the limitation of height is simply a normal part of its adaptation of a niche. The sheer mechanical instability of excessive height without compensation in girth provides its normal way of death.

Many plants avoid (or solve?) these problems of the limitation of growth by linking their life-span to the calendar or to their own reproductive cycle. Annuals start a new generation each year, and plants like the so-called century plant (yucca) may live many years but, like the salmon, inevitably die when they reproduce. Except for multiple branching within the flowering head, the yucca makes no branches. The branching influorescence itself is its terminal stem; when that has completed its function, the plant dies. Its death is normal to its way of life.

Among some higher animals, growth is controlled. The creature reaches a size or age or stage at which growth simply stops (i.e., is stopped by chemical or other messages within the organization of the creature). The cells, under control, cease to grow and divide. When controls no longer operate (by failure to generate the message or failure to receive it), the result is cancer. Where do such messages originate, what triggers their sending, and in what presumably chemical code are these messages immanent? What controls the nearly perfect external bilateral symmetry of the mammalian body? We have remarkably little knowledge of the message system that controls growth. There must be a whole interlocking system as yet scarcely studied.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bob Magaw said:
And then there was eating. Somehow it had to eat, every day, eight times the amount that would satisfy a normal horse and had to push all that food down an esophagus only four times the caliber of the normal. The blood vessels, too, were reduced in relative size, and this made circulation more difficult and put extra strain on the heart.
Actually, this one is backwards. Given that a substantial portion of energy intake is devoted to maintaining core temperature, and a larger creature can sustain that temperature with less energy expenditure, relative caloric requirements decrease as animals grow in size.

Consider the mouse, who eats half of his body weight every day, in comparison to man, who eats at best a fiftieth of his weight. Similarly, an 8-times-as-massive horse would eat a relatively smaller proportion of its own weight than a typical horse.

 
Weird thread. Love Watkins, hope he can stay healthy for 16 games next year.

Not sure why people don't like Decker, dude had a great year.

Georg and Alex Keaton seem like angry guys.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Looking back at this thread you can't blame guys for needing to see more before they realized how wrong they were about a player. Some guys recognize elite play sooner than others. Nothing wrong with that. Sammy is an elite player. Hopefully we can agree on that now and be all caught up. Anxious to see him upshift to the next gear. Looking like he is ready to ascend my depth chart. Great season buddy. 


P.S. Chaka, I am not angry. Lol. How could I be with Sammy on my team?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have to say I was wrong on Sammy. I never doubted the talent, but I thought his ceiling was limited with the coaches and system he was in and the number of targets he would see. I do think we need to be a bit suspect of it's repeatability and thus have to keep in that in mind as we draft WRs next year. 

For Non-PPR, here are the top 10 WRs for ppg. I have listed next to them their targets per game. 

Brown  12.1

Beckham  10.5

Julio   12.7

Marshall  10.8

Robinson  9.4

Hopkins   12

Watkins   7.8

Edelman   9.7

Smith  10.4

Allen   11.1

The next 10 WRs averaged 9.3

Here is the same set-up from 2014

Brown  11.3

Nelson   9.4

Dez    8.5

Thomas   11.5

Beckham   10.8

Cobb   7.9

Sanders   8.8

Julio    10.9

Maclin     9

Evans   8.2 

The next 10 WRs averaged 8.1

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tyler Dunne 


 
‎@TyDunne



Some more bad news for the #Bills this Monday. Multiple team sources tell me that wide receiver Sammy Watkins has broken his foot.


3:22 PM - 16 May 2016





Ian Rapoport 


 
‎@RapSheet



#Bills WR Sammy Watkins suffered a broken small bone in his foot & had a screw inserted, source said. Should be ready for training camp.


3:27 PM - 16 May 2016
so confusing. sounds like home boy is reporting something that just happened. But other tweets make it sound more like the old injury, being re reported.

So is it a re break or the same break?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
 


NFL on ESPNVerified account‏@ESPNNFL

UPDATE: @AdamSchefter reports Sammy Watkins is not expected to return until after training camp but in time for the regular-season opener.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Man, this really sucks because when you have great WR + foot injury, it always takes them a year to get over it.  Julio, Dez, D. Thomas in recent years springs to mind. I think D. Parker would have showed us more had he not had a foot issue prior. 

Really a shame.

 
Man, this really sucks because when you have great WR + foot injury, it always takes them a year to get over it.  Julio, Dez, D. Thomas in recent years springs to mind. I think D. Parker would have showed us more had he not had a foot issue prior. 

Really a shame.
Exactly what I was thinking, except you had a longer list.

Do we know if this is the same issue as Julio and Dez?

 
Sammy Watkins' foot surgery took place "about a month ago."
The earlier the surgery took place, the better Watkins' chances are of returning full strength for Week 1. Watkins expressed optimism on Twitter Monday, tweeting to a fan that he'll "of course" be ready for the preseason. Watkins battled rib and hip injuries as a 2014 rookie. He underwent hip surgery last offseason before dealing with calf, hip, and foot problems during the year.

 
 
Source: Buffalo News 
May 16 - 7:38 PM

 
Surprised there has been no talk about his injury status until now.  I would worry about a guy who just got a screw put in his foot.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top